English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What's the difference between oblige and obligate?

Speculating, is the latter an Americanism of the British former? Or is there any distinction about what/who has caused someone to be oblig(at)ed to do something?

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Neither is more correct than the other. They're both common words. In fact, they're sometimes different words. For instance, to oblige someone is to do something for them that they want you to do. "She asked me to pick up dinner, and I obliged her by getting some lasagna from a little Italian place down the street."

That's not the same as obligating someone, which means to make them HAVE to do something (or feel that they have to). "Although the statue was meant as a birthday gift, he obviously felt obligated to get me something expensive in return, despite my protestations."

There is a dialect aspect to it as well. What's wrong with "obligate"? In US English nothing is wrong with it. In Australian English everything is wrong with it. Here's how I'd have put it.

"Although the statue was meant as a birthday gift, he obviously felt obliged to get me something expensive in return, despite my protest."

In my dialect "oblige" is fairly common but "obligate" is never heard. The distinction that Uriel mentions is not made in Australian English. We use "oblige" for both meanings.

share|improve this answer
My dialect (modern RP / British English) would treat "obligate" as a foreign (American) and needlessly fussy version of oblige. Even in legal usage (I work as a lawyer) I'd be surprised to see obligate outside a US contract or tract. In the law of obligations we talk about obligors and obligees not obligators and obligatees which would follow the American usage I guess. – Francis Davey Aug 31 '14 at 9:45
I agree that they mean the same thing, but it seems to me that just as we could either say oriented or orientated we can use obliged or obligated. For some reason though, while "oriented" is more widely used in the U.S., "obliged" is more commonly used in some other English speaking countries. – Alan Gee Jan 20 '15 at 18:09

To sum it up......... Once obligated, you can't back out without serious repercussions. To say that I'm obliged to do something means that I could live with the consequences of not doing it.

share|improve this answer

From a legal point of view, per the argument of the legal scholar H.L.A. Hart, to be obliged is when you must do something under threat of sanction. In other words, you have little choice in the matter. Obligation, on the other hand, is an appeal to authority and morality rather than an appeal to fear or sanction. So you might say, 'The bank teller was obliged to hand over the money under gunpoint'. Similarly, 'The man was obligated to find two witnesses, or his claim would fail under law.'

See the difference? This is a linguistic distinction based on legal arguments, so I'm not sure whether you can extend what I have said to general usage of the words 'obliged' and 'obligated'.

share|improve this answer
At iep.utm.edu/legalpos/#H1 – Pacerier May 23 at 9:05

Should anyone still be interested, I thought to quote Grammarist.com's article (which offers example sentences that I don't replicate here):

As a transitive verb, one which requires an object, oblige can mean to restrict by external force or circumstances. To be obliged is to be in someone’s debt because of a favor or service. As an intransitive verb, one which does not require an object, oblige means to take action as a favor, or without reward.

A person who obliges is an obliger, though the noun form is hardly ever used.

Obligate carries a slightly different meaning, which is to force someone (or an organization) to do something because the law or morality requires it.

Over the last hundred years, obliged has fallen in use while obligated has risen very slightly, though obliged is still more common.

share|improve this answer

"Disrespecting" carries a strong connotation of intent, while one who is "being disrespectful" may or may not be so with such pointedness, or even deliberately at all.

The enrichment and increased subtlety of language is not "crass".

share|improve this answer
Hi Bobro, this answer will probably be converted to a comment since it is really a reply to another answer. If you stay active and earn a little more reputation you'll soon be able to post comments directly as well. – Hellion Mar 29 '15 at 20:29

The verb is to oblige, therefore you are obliged.

The noun is obligation, so you can "have an obligation" and qualify it by adding moral, legal, immutable or whatever. There's no need to invent obligated; it's as crass as saying "disrespecting" instead of being disrespectful.

share|improve this answer
No; they're both verbs. Check in a dictionary. ELU is concerned with the facts of English usage, and is not primarily a platform for personal crusades. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 10 '15 at 20:57

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.